GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 1 of 3 1 23 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Can you Create healthcare.gov in 5 Years??? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1124226)

PornoMonster 10-22-2013 08:38 PM
Can you Create healthcare.gov in 5 Years???
 
She said they had to roll out what they had to meet the law Deadline.

But in a perfect world if she would of had 5 years ...

WTF FIVE Years...
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/22/politi...html?hpt=hp_t1

No wonder government can't get shit done...

The website is NOT complex. even the queries to the credit companies, is not something new.

Just fix it, and get the people singe up that want to...

Rochard 10-22-2013 09:11 PM
But it wasn't "creating a website" in five years. A lot of people keep saying "it's just a website" but I think it's a lot more than that.

Generally speaking, we come up with an idea, shoot the content, and produce a site. But that's not always the case. I used to be GM at Playboy ICS, and at every step off the way we had to "talk to legal". We would come up with an idea and legal would want to have multiple conference calls about it, then review the idea in private. Then they would want to review the guidelines about how the models were selected, then legal would want to pick the photographers, then - get this - legal would have to approve the shooting location (because we had to have insurance), and then legal would want to review every aspect of the design and would demand changes. Holy shit, if one model had her legs spread more than forty-five degrees everything would be rejected. And this is before we made any promo content or made any press releases.

I could only begin to imagine the difficulties here. This wasn't "five years to build a website". In June of 2012 - less than a year ago - this law was in the Supreme Court while we waited to see if this would become a law or not. Then factor in that long before any code was written hundreds of people had to be vetted and cleared just to talk to the fifty different states and examine how their laws and rules would come into play.

Don't get me wrong, it seems the technology used was ten years old. It took too long, and way too much money, and was done by the wrong people. On top of this, I read the other day that they are calling in Verizon to fix it. Really, Verizon? Because if I want a website design the first technology company I think of is Verizon.

Getting this off the ground is going to be a bitch. Let's get it running, figure out what's wrong with this, and then fix it.

bean-aid 10-22-2013 09:27 PM
Having a signup process and actually sign them up costs between 2million and 150 million dollars...

source... Obama, our President :upsidedow

L-Pink 10-22-2013 09:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaner (Post 19844691)
Having a signup process and actually sign them up costs between 2million and 150 million dollars...

source... Obama, our President :upsidedow
If I said I was going to buy a car and spend between 2 thousand and 150 thousand on it you would look at me like I was nuts. That I had no idea what I was doing. Just saying.

PornoMonster 10-23-2013 01:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19844678)
But it wasn't "creating a website" in five years. A lot of people keep saying "it's just a website" but I think it's a lot more than that.

Generally speaking, we come up with an idea, shoot the content, and produce a site. But that's not always the case. I used to be GM at Playboy ICS, and at every step off the way we had to "talk to legal". We would come up with an idea and legal would want to have multiple conference calls about it, then review the idea in private. Then they would want to review the guidelines about how the models were selected, then legal would want to pick the photographers, then - get this - legal would have to approve the shooting location (because we had to have insurance), and then legal would want to review every aspect of the design and would demand changes. Holy shit, if one model had her legs spread more than forty-five degrees everything would be rejected. And this is before we made any promo content or made any press releases.

I could only begin to imagine the difficulties here. This wasn't "five years to build a website". In June of 2012 - less than a year ago - this law was in the Supreme Court while we waited to see if this would become a law or not. Then factor in that long before any code was written hundreds of people had to be vetted and cleared just to talk to the fifty different states and examine how their laws and rules would come into play.

Don't get me wrong, it seems the technology used was ten years old. It took too long, and way too much money, and was done by the wrong people. On top of this, I read the other day that they are calling in Verizon to fix it. Really, Verizon? Because if I want a website design the first technology company I think of is Verizon.

Getting this off the ground is going to be a bitch. Let's get it running, figure out what's wrong with this, and then fix it.
First you Didn't Read.
Then you didn't watch the Video.

No One said it was 5 years. it was 3 haha. She said she wishes she had 5 years.

AND say what you want, You prob have not signed up, or watched someone do it....

I HAVE watched (helped) it is something that could of been done Easily in a year or less with the gov leverage in working with a few different sources.

I have seen the SRS computer do almost everything it asks for here, except verify who you are, since you are already at the office in person.
Then add in a little shopping cart and a tax calculator..

PornoMonster 10-23-2013 01:30 AM
vetted and cleared, LOL

OUTSOURCED --

I think they went to Fiver!

Anyway the MILLIONS spent could of covered lots of people.. lol

Correct me if wrong, but isn't there only like 10 million people Not covered?

BradBreakfast 10-23-2013 03:02 AM
It looks like a bad Wordpress theme.

noshit 10-23-2013 04:12 AM

Barry-xlovecam 10-23-2013 06:05 AM
Could you create a database driven website that could handle 250,000 visitors /day, that is over 10,000 visitors accessing your SQL database with numerous reads and writes hourly?

That said, most of you Internet critics would not be up to the task.

A more realistic critique would be of the healthcare.org team's flawed concept.
You don't cut the yellow tape and allow your website to be overrun and flooded with demand it cannot handle.

They could have divided the website into regional sub-domains better distributing the stress over master/slave SQL servers. If you look at the major search engines somehow they handle these massive volumes, albeit no write SQL transactions, these write transactions, as you should know, are considerably slower than reads.

They could have created a queue of A-Z by state or region. They could have just accepted registrations then emailed the registrants with an appointment date range or a number -- get in line ...

They should have gotten help from IBM, Oracle, even maybe from the development teams at Amazon, Google, e-Bay and the like ... I hope the government owes the consultancy company they hired lots of money -- Guess what? You ain't getting paid the balance 'till yo fix yo shit!

This is a mismanagement of access demand and with more controlled access the back-end faults could have been fixed in a reasonable time and in an orderly fashion.

A big part of the problem is the "I want it now!!!" mentality rampant today.

Some heads should roll over this whole debacle.

tony286 10-23-2013 06:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 19844931)
Could you create a database driven website that could handle 250,000 visitors /day, that is over 10,000 visitors accessing your SQL database with numerous reads and writes hourly?

That said, most of you Internet critics would not be up to the task.

A more realistic critique would be of the healthcare.org team's flawed concept.
You don't cut the yellow tape and allow your website to be overrun and flooded with demand it cannot handle.

They could have divided the website into regional sub-domains better distributing the stress over master/slave SQL servers. If you look at the major search engines somehow they handle these massive volumes, albeit no write SQL transactions, these write transactions, as you should know, are considerably slower than reads.

They could have created a queue of A-Z by state or region. They could have just accepted registrations then emailed the registrants with an appointment date range or a number -- get in line ...

They should have gotten help from IBM, Oracle, even maybe from the development teams at Amazon, Google, e-Bay and the like ... I hope the government owes the consultancy company they hired lots of money -- Guess what? You ain't getting paid the balance 'till yo fix yo shit!

This is a mismanagement of access demand and with more controlled access the back-end faults could have been fixed in a reasonable time and in an orderly fashion.

A big part of the problem is the "I want it now!!!" mentality rampant today.

Some heads should roll over this whole debacle.
Well said ! There is also a direct connect with states whose GOV are on board and those whose GOVs are fighting it. KY is signing up a 1000 people day. So if the state created their own exchange it works better.

Minte 10-23-2013 06:33 AM
I liked Jay Leno's comment on Obama's spin.
Now they are going to bring in the best and brightest minds to repair the problems with the site... why didn't they bring them in at the beginning?

potter 10-23-2013 06:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 19844931)
Could you create a database driven website that could handle 250,000 visitors /day, that is over 10,000 visitors accessing your SQL database with numerous reads and writes hourly?

That said, most of you Internet critics would not be up to the task.

A more realistic critique would be of the healthcare.org team's flawed concept.
You don't cut the yellow tape and allow your website to be overrun and flooded with demand it cannot handle.

They could have divided the website into regional sub-domains better distributing the stress over master/slave SQL servers. If you look at the major search engines somehow they handle these massive volumes, albeit no write SQL transactions, these write transactions, as you should know, are considerably slower than reads.

They could have created a queue of A-Z by state or region. They could have just accepted registrations then emailed the registrants with an appointment date range or a number -- get in line ...

They should have gotten help from IBM, Oracle, even maybe from the development teams at Amazon, Google, e-Bay and the like ... I hope the government owes the consultancy company they hired lots of money -- Guess what? You ain't getting paid the balance 'till yo fix yo shit!

This is a mismanagement of access demand and with more controlled access the back-end faults could have been fixed in a reasonable time and in an orderly fashion.

A big part of the problem is the "I want it now!!!" mentality rampant today.

Some heads should roll over this whole debacle.
This is GFY. People here don't know what it takes to build a real website. :2 cents:

EddyTheDog 10-23-2013 06:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 19844931)
Could you create a database driven website that could handle 250,000 visitors /day, that is over 10,000 visitors accessing your SQL database with numerous reads and writes hourly?

That said, most of you Internet critics would not be up to the task.

A more realistic critique would be of the healthcare.org team's flawed concept.
You don't cut the yellow tape and allow your website to be overrun and flooded with demand it cannot handle.

They could have divided the website into regional sub-domains better distributing the stress over master/slave SQL servers. If you look at the major search engines somehow they handle these massive volumes, albeit no write SQL transactions, these write transactions, as you should know, are considerably slower than reads.

They could have created a queue of A-Z by state or region. They could have just accepted registrations then emailed the registrants with an appointment date range or a number -- get in line ...

They should have gotten help from IBM, Oracle, even maybe from the development teams at Amazon, Google, e-Bay and the like ... I hope the government owes the consultancy company they hired lots of money -- Guess what? You ain't getting paid the balance 'till yo fix yo shit!

This is a mismanagement of access demand and with more controlled access the back-end faults could have been fixed in a reasonable time and in an orderly fashion.

A big part of the problem is the "I want it now!!!" mentality rampant today.

Some heads should roll over this whole debacle.
I agree that it is not as easy as it looks - I think they should have got together a team of geeks from Google, Facebook etc - They could have done this much more efficiently I am sure.....

As far as Search Engines not having to write data - Where do you think that data comes from?..

I would go as far as to say there are more writes than reads - Even if you ignore the bots, analytics for Google itself creates massive amounts of data...

arock10 10-23-2013 08:43 AM
the front end is the easy part... its building out the entire backend to work with all the insurance companies etc is the hard part.

still no excuse but saying "oh its just a bad wordpress template" etc is just dumb

wehateporn 10-23-2013 08:46 AM
Here's where they're up to apparently

http://www.hometechhealthcare.com/?p=1

dyna mo 10-23-2013 08:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 19844931)
Could you create a database driven website that could handle 250,000 visitors /day, that is over 10,000 visitors accessing your SQL database with numerous reads and writes hourly?

That said, most of you Internet critics would not be up to the task.

A more realistic critique would be of the healthcare.org team's flawed concept.
You don't cut the yellow tape and allow your website to be overrun and flooded with demand it cannot handle.

They could have divided the website into regional sub-domains better distributing the stress over master/slave SQL servers. If you look at the major search engines somehow they handle these massive volumes, albeit no write SQL transactions, these write transactions, as you should know, are considerably slower than reads.

They could have created a queue of A-Z by state or region. They could have just accepted registrations then emailed the registrants with an appointment date range or a number -- get in line ...

They should have gotten help from IBM, Oracle, even maybe from the development teams at Amazon, Google, e-Bay and the like ... I hope the government owes the consultancy company they hired lots of money -- Guess what? You ain't getting paid the balance 'till yo fix yo shit!

This is a mismanagement of access demand and with more controlled access the back-end faults could have been fixed in a reasonable time and in an orderly fashion.

A big part of the problem is the "I want it now!!!" mentality rampant today.

Some heads should roll over this whole debacle.
ehealth.com handles plenty of traffic/queries.
Quote:
eHealthInsurance is a national marketplace that lists sales quotes for various health insurance plans and allows consumers to apply for coverage online.[1] Using their proprietary "eApproval" technology, eHealthInsurance can approve some applications during a single online session.
Licensed to market and sell health insurance in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, eHealthInsurance has developed partnerships with more than 180 health insurance companies and offers more than 10,000 health insurance products.
eHealthInsurance's parent company is eHealth, Inc. eHealth was founded in 1997, and its technology was responsible for the nation's first Internet-based sale of a health insurance policy.[citation needed] eHealth, Inc. is headquartered in Mountain View, California.

travel sites have huge db issues to sort in realtime for 100s of 1000s of queries, no biggie.


and i wager a lot that none of these websites costs more than a few million dollars.


no, this was doable. very.

Dvae 10-23-2013 08:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 19844931)
Could you create a database driven website that could handle 250,000 visitors /day, that is over 10,000 visitors accessing your SQL database with numerous reads and writes hourly?
For $634 Million I would hope so.

Rochard 10-23-2013 09:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PornoMonster (Post 19844779)

No One said it was 5 years. it was 3 haha. She said she wishes she had 5 years.
The title of the thread is five years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PornoMonster (Post 19844779)
AND say what you want, You prob have not signed up, or watched someone do it....
In fact, I did sign up. However, I am from California and it seems we understand technology a little bit better. California runs their own site, and it doesn't seem to have any issues.

Vendzilla 10-23-2013 10:17 AM
Why do Obama Supporters have excuses for all his failures
And blame all his opponents?
Same people watch a Tea Party Rally and watch one guy with a banner saying something racist and declare all Tea Party people Racist
Doesn't say much for Obama Supporters

Obama didn't know about Obamacare website problems
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...before-rollout

Obama didn't know about IRS report
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...ut-irs-report/

Obama didn't know about fast and furious
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._in_media.html

He doesn't care enough to know I guess?

Barry-xlovecam 10-23-2013 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyTheDog (Post 19844975)
I agree that it is not as easy as it looks - I think they should have got together a team of geeks from Google, Facebook etc - They could have done this much more efficiently I am sure.....

As far as Search Engines not having to write data - Where do you think that data comes from?..

I would go as far as to say there are more writes than reads - Even if you ignore the bots, analytics for Google itself creates massive amounts of data...
Google does not do synchronous read /writes within their user seen search website -- the search bots connect to separate SQL (relational databases DB2 or postgress?), the data is then analyzed, sorted, finally ranked. Another important thing being ignored in equation is the connectivity and return data from other databases queried (Equifax as an example). I haven't read to date read anything specific on these issues and have only seen a flow chart of the other outside database connections necessary in the website process.

But all these problems should have been apparent in their DB design and their back-end development.

Bottom line, NO WAY can you do what they are trying to do -- register and place 5 million people into heath insurance plans in just 90 days with an disorganised cluster-fuck, first come first served approach. That is just ludicrous.

They should extend the registration and placement procedure to the end of 2014, then abate any penalties concurrently with that time extension. Then devise an organized procedure that will accommodate the 5 million person demand.

Minte 10-23-2013 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19845227)
Why do Obama Supporters have excuses for all his failures
And blame all his opponents?
Same people watch a Tea Party Rally and watch one guy with a banner saying something racist and declare all Tea Party people Racist
Doesn't say much for Obama Supporters

Obama didn't know about Obamacare website problems
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...before-rollout

Obama didn't know about IRS report
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...ut-irs-report/

Obama didn't know about fast and furious
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._in_media.html

He doesn't care enough to know I guess?
I'd give him a pass on not knowing what the IRS was doing. Those guys live in their own little world.

I'd give him a bit of slack for not knowing about Fast & furious. Rogue generals could've pulled that over on him. After all, obama knows nothing about the military.

I'd fire his ass to the curb for not knowing that his centerpiece legislation was not fully operational. It was absolutely his job to know that everything was ready. It's not pelosicare.

Rochard 10-23-2013 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19845227)
Why do Obama Supporters have excuses for all his failures
And blame all his opponents?
Same people watch a Tea Party Rally and watch one guy with a banner saying something racist and declare all Tea Party people Racist
Doesn't say much for Obama Supporters

Obama didn't know about Obamacare website problems
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...before-rollout

Obama didn't know about IRS report
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...ut-irs-report/

Obama didn't know about fast and furious
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._in_media.html

He doesn't care enough to know I guess?
And yet we had a Republican Congressman from California this morning on national TV during a press conference telling us that Californians are having problems with the federal healthcare website.... Oddly enough, he didn't seem to know that people from his state don't use the federal website, but use a state website - which is working fine. The Republican Congressman from California doesn't seem to understand how the healthcare website affects members of his own state, but instead just followed the standard Republican line of "It's not working for our state".

Then we have you, who wants to blame everything on Obama.

Does the President of the United States know everything that the IRS is doing? Does it know every department manager, and sit on on every conference call? Does the White House get veto power over which groups or orginzations the IRS pays extra attention to? Was the White House or anyone in the Obama Administration even aware that the IRS paid special attention to any groups at all? No, of course not. The White House, The Obama Administration, is not aware of the daily actions of every department of the IRS.

Then we have the Fast And Furious issue. Again, is the White House aware of the daily actions of the ATF? Does the ATF brief someone on at the White House about their investigations? Of course not, the case load from one office alone would staggering. For the same reason, the ATF does not inform the US Justice Department of investigations and operations it is doing on a regular basis.

Then at the same time... You keep bitching about how this is Obama's fault, yet this operation started in 2006 BEFORE Obama took office. Why did President Bush know the operation was started, no less why did Bush allow it to continue for two years? Simple - because he didn't know.

Use common sense here.

Rochard 10-23-2013 11:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minte (Post 19845345)

I'd fire his ass to the curb for not knowing that his centerpiece legislation was not fully operational. It was absolutely his job to know that everything was ready. It's not pelosicare.
Well, clearly the Republican party helped by spending the past three years trying to beat the bill AND dragging it all the way up to the Supreme Court.

L-Pink 10-23-2013 11:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19845352)
Well, clearly the Republican party helped by spending the past three years trying to beat the bill AND dragging it all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Stop defending him like it's your religion. He's just a guy from Illinois that has a good idea executed poorly. Admit he fucked up and let's all hope it gets fixed and works. Damn ?..

dyna mo 10-23-2013 11:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by L-Pink (Post 19845363)
Sand let's all hope it gets fixed and works. Damn ?..
and then let's hope the required 2.7 million healthy peeps sign up!

Minte 10-23-2013 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19845352)
Well, clearly the Republican party helped by spending the past three years trying to beat the bill AND dragging it all the way up to the Supreme Court.
You were military..so was I. Would you have followed Obama into combat?

The leader of the free world is supposed to lead. That means being completely prepared, no excuses. Those are for the losing side.

Rochard 10-23-2013 11:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by L-Pink (Post 19845363)
Stop defending him like it's your religion. He's just a guy from Illinois that has a good idea executed poorly. Admit he fucked up and let's all hope it gets fixed and works. Damn ?..
I am not defending him; I am trying to see this from a viewpoint of common sense.

I am stunned that it has taken so long, cost so much, uses technology that is ten years old, and isn't working correctly.

With that said, why are we blaming the faults of the website on the President? Do we really want the President overseeing the design of one aspect of the healthcare bill that involves the website? Does he know how to code in HTML or PHP, or how to use Photoshop? Does it he know about databases intergration and how large of a project this is? Has Obama ever so much as logged into a server via FTP to do anything? Does he even know what FTP is?

It's up to the health department to build the website, not the White House, and not Congress.

At the very same time, why didn't they just have each state build it's own website? Seems to be working best for most states.

Rochard 10-23-2013 12:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minte (Post 19845387)
You were military..so was I. Would you have followed Obama into combat?
No. Obama hasn't spent the past twenty years of his life in the military and most likely has no idea what is involved in charging a bunker or a machine gun nest.

At the same time, I wouldn't have followed either Bush Presidents, Clinton, or Carter. (Reagan I mostly likely would have followed over a cliff.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minte (Post 19845387)
The leader of the free world is supposed to lead. That means being completely prepared, no excuses. Those are for the losing side.
And Bush was better?

Seems to me like we've spent the past twenty years doing our best to minimize the power the of the President, and instead we've handed it over to Congress - and we see first hand how that is working out.

dyna mo 10-23-2013 12:02 PM
all the sudden it's a website to rochard now.


it's not that hard

1 year ago-

pres: does the website/central component of my legacy work 100%?

minion: no, it's intermittent.

president: you're fired. next.

Vendzilla 10-23-2013 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minte (Post 19845345)
I'd give him a pass on not knowing what the IRS was doing. Those guys live in their own little world.
The head of the IRS was at the White House a lot, more than any other time in History. It should have come up at least once
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...its-92087.html

Quote:
I'd give him a bit of slack for not knowing about Fast & furious. Rogue generals could've pulled that over on him. After all, obama knows nothing about the military.
Then why did he choose to lie about it?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...dministration/
Quote:
I'd fire his ass to the curb for not knowing that his centerpiece legislation was not fully operational. It was absolutely his job to know that everything was ready. It's not pelosicare.
Agreed

Minte 10-23-2013 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19845407)
No. Obama hasn't spent the past twenty years of his life in the military and most likely has no idea what is involved in charging a bunker or a machine gun nest.

At the same time, I wouldn't have followed either Bush Presidents, Clinton, or Carter. (Reagan I mostly likely would have followed over a cliff.)



And Bush was better?

Seems to me like we've spent the past twenty years doing our best to minimize the power the of the President, and instead we've handed it over to Congress - and we see first hand how that is working out.
If the standard for Obama is that he's no worse than Bush..what the hell is he doing sitting in the oval office. Keep in mind, Bush had to deal with fallout of the single worst attack on the US in history. Obama has to deal with a website.

dyna mo 10-23-2013 12:20 PM
new boss = old boss

Minte 10-23-2013 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19845429)
The head of the IRS was at the White House a lot, more than any other time in History. It should have come up at least once
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...its-92087.html


Then why did he choose to lie about it?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...dministration/

Agreed
I think it's fair to say that I am not an obamafanboy.. I am aware of the visits from the IRS, and would assume Obama had a bit of knowledge at what was going on. But we'll never know for certain.

Same goes with fast and furious.. he probably knew. But prove it. Same with the list of scandals he's got simmering.

But his legacy will be one thing and that is healthcare reform. He owns it, and so far it's been exactly what most people(me included) that didn't buy into predicted it would be.

Rochard 10-23-2013 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minte (Post 19845430)
If the standard for Obama is that he's no worse than Bush..what the hell is he doing sitting in the oval office. Keep in mind, Bush had to deal with fallout of the single worst attack on the US in history. Obama has to deal with a website.
If the standard for Obama is that he is no worse than Bush we are fucked.

What is he doing in the Oval Office? The Republican party failed to bring someone to beat Obama. An old man who looks like a chipmonk paired up with a nutcase (Palin) failed, as did a businessman who's entire business history was buying stuff with other people's money and then destroying it. Seriously, Obama was a little known Congressman with a less than impressive track record - he should have been super easy to beat.

Barry-xlovecam 10-23-2013 12:46 PM
Obamacare -- How Healthcare Co-Ops were Gutted
 


Since this thread seems to have become yet another political name calling contest ...
Take the time to read this article. If the report is accurate it says a lot about the background of this (nothing to do with the website but in light of the political course this thread has taken it seems apropos).

I just read an article that gave a lot of reasons to pause and consider what is going on with the ACA AKA: Obamacare.

In the original Affordable Care Act there was to be granted $10 Billion as seed money for qualified entities to establish "Healthcare Co-Ops" in the local communities or states.

Before you start screaming -- less federal spending! This is spending to be controlled by persons in your local area, in competition with the very same healthcare insurers, that may rake in the largest share of the profits to be gained by the mandatory stipulation in the ACA (Obamacare legislation) that you protest so loudly ...

So what happened ... read the article

Health co-ops, created to foster competition and lower insurance costs, are in danger

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...8ea_story.html

arock10 10-23-2013 12:52 PM
Read that yesterday. So much for republicans being pro competition

Vendzilla 10-23-2013 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minte (Post 19845443)
I think it's fair to say that I am not an obamafanboy.. I am aware of the visits from the IRS, and would assume Obama had a bit of knowledge at what was going on. But we'll never know for certain.

Same goes with fast and furious.. he probably knew. But prove it. Same with the list of scandals he's got simmering.

But his legacy will be one thing and that is healthcare reform. He owns it, and so far it's been exactly what most people(me included) that didn't buy into predicted it would be.
It might be that, but it sure happens a lot, either he didn't know anything about it or he doesn't own the problem.

He just denies anything negative and puts a spin on it

As of October 21, 2013, there have been close to 1,207,000 unemployed workers in California who have run out of all available benefits.

Currently, there are more than 750,000 people certifying for benefits in California.

That's the only reason unemployment has dropped and that asshole Obama is taking credit for new jobs created.

He spent all of his time passing a law without support from the GOP in anyway when he should have been focusing on jobs

dyna mo 10-23-2013 01:41 PM
was just reading it's a $99 fine to not sign up to obamacare. not sure that's a big enough driver to get those 2.7 million healthy young people to buy in at ~$300/month.

$99 v ~$3600.

Barry-xlovecam 10-23-2013 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19845540)
was just reading it's a $99 fine to not sign up to obamacare. not sure that's a big enough driver to get those 2.7 million healthy young people to buy in at ~$300/month.

$99 v ~$3600.
You are probably right. It's a token amount at this point but rises over the years to a maximum in 2016:
Quote:
So, basically, you're looking at penalties of approximately the following at the following income levels:

Less than $9,500 income = $0
$9,500 - $37,000 income = $695
$50,000 income = $1,000
$75,000 income = $1,600
$100,000 income = $2,250
$125,000 income = $2,900
$150,000 income = $3,500
$175,000 income = $4,100
$200,000 income = $4,700
Over $200,000 = The cost of a "bronze" health-insurance plan
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-m...lty-tax-2012-7
There is an exemption from the mandatory fines/taxes that is if the minimum healthcare insurance (the bronze plan) is in excess of 8% of your income.

I think the best motivator will be when you get medical bills as an uninsured person at the inflated rates that hospitals charge the uninsured.

However, the collusion between the insurers and the Congress make any real lowering of costs a pipe dream (for now anyway).

dyna mo 10-23-2013 02:24 PM
yeah, the $99 is the 1st year penalty, hadn't looked deeper into 2015+

point is, the entire system hinges on those 2.7 million young people, who don't need nor have used med insurance benefits to buy in.

i hope it works but trying to put myself in the shoes of a <25 year old healthy person who's never required medical attention, and living paycheck to paycheck, not sure if that sort will bother to sign up.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:34 AM.
Page 1 of 3 1 23 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123